BS 


UC-NRLF 


C6 


M3    032 


EXCHANGE 


tElje  Slmforr0it£  of  Chicago* 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  I).  ROCKEFELLER. 


THE 

THIRD  COMMANDMENT. 


A    DISSERTATION     SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTIES     OF    THE 
GRADUATE  SCHOOLS  OF  ART'S, '•  TU'i'KRATURE,  AND  SCIENCE, 
IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    TftE  ;  .DEGREE  ;  hi'  ;i5O(;TOR,    OF 
PHILOSOPHY    (DEPARTMENT 'OF    SEMITIC    LAN- 
GUAGES  AND    LITERATURE). 


FULTON   JOHNSON    COFFIN. 


c 


PRINTED   AT 

THE   NORWOOD    PRESS, 
NORWOOD,  MASS. 


of  Chicago* 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER. 


THE 

THIRD  COMMANDMENT, 


A    DISSERTATION    SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTIES     OF    THE 
GRADUATE  SCHOOLS  OF  ARTS,  LITERATURE,  AND  SCIENCE, 
IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE -OF TXXJIGR    OF 
PHILOSOPHY   (DEPARTMENT    OF    SEMITIC    LAN- 
GUAGES AND   LITERATURE). 


BY 

FULTON   JOHNSON   COFFIN. 


PRINTED   AT 

THE   NORWOOD    PRESS, 
NORWOOD,  MASS. 


•  •  •  •  •  •     •     ••    « 

•  "••••.'•:  :•..:/:.  ..: 


EXCHANGE 


Accepted  as  a  dissertation  by  the  Faculty  of  the 
Graduate  Schools  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
June,  /< 


VITA. 


I,  Fulton  Johnson  Coffin,  was  born  ir>  the  Province  of  Prince 
Edward  Island,  Dominion  of  Canada,  on  the  ^5th  of  July,  1864. 

My  early  education  was  received  iv  'he  public  schools  of  my 
native  place  and  by  private  instruction.  In  1878'  I -entered  the 
Prince  of  Wales  College,  where  I  remained  for  three  years  in  prepa- 
ration for  the  University.  In  October,  1882,  I  matriculated  at  Dal- 
housie  University,  Halifax,  N.S.,  from  which  I  graduated  as  B.A. 
in  1886,  with  Honors  in  the  departments  of  History  and  English 
Literature. 

During  the  session  1886-7  I  studied  theology  at  the  Presbyterian 
College,  Halifax,  N.S.,  and  during  the  years  1887-9  continued  my 
studies  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.J.  In  1889  I 
also  received  the  degree  of  M.A.  from  Princeton  College,  by  exami- 
nation in  the  department  of  Philosophy. 

During  the  years  1890-3  I  was  connected  with  the  Canadian 
Presbyterian  Missions  in  Trinidad,  B.  W.  Indies,  as  instructor  in 
Biblical  History  and  Theology  in  the  College  of  that  Mission. 

From  1894-8  I  was  Fellow  in  the  Department  of  Comparative 
Religion  in  the  University  of  Chicago.  During  these  years  I  devoted 
my  attention  especially  to  the  study  of  Comparative  Religion,  An- 
cient History,  and  Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature. 

In  the  Prince  of  Wales  College  I  studied  under  Drs.  Anderson, 
Alexander,  and  others ;  in  Dalhousie  University  my  chief  instructors 
were  President  Forrest,  Professors  Alexander  (now  of  Toronto  Uni- 
versity) and  Schurman  (now  President  Schurman  of  Cornell  Univer- 
sity) ;  in  Princeton,  President  McCosh,  Professors  Green,  Hodge, 
Patton,  Warfield,  Orris,  and  others ;  in  the  University  of  Chicago, 
President  William  R.  Harper  and  Professor  G.  S.  Goodspeed.  To 
all  whom  I  have  named,  I  owe  sincere  gratitude  for  their  kindness 
and  helpfulness  ;  but  very  especially  do  I  feel  indebted  to  Professor 
Goodspeed  for  his  deep  interest  and  assistance,  and  to  President 
Harper  for  direction  and  counsel  and  many  acts  of  helpfulness 
during  my  residence  in  the  University. 


The  Third  Commandment. 

PROF.    F.    J.    COFFIN,    PH.D. 

BIBLE   NORMAL  COLLEGE,    SPRINGFIELD,    MASS. 
I. 

The  History  of  Interpretation.  —  The  most  important  renderings 
of  the  third  commandment  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times  are  as 
follows  : 

Septuagint  :  ov  Xrjfjuf/r]  TO  oVo/xa  Kvpiov  TOV  Otov  o~ov  CTTI  /xaraio).  ov 
yap  fM]  KaOapi&r)  Kv/oios  6  Otos  o~ov  TOV  Aa/>i/3avovTa  TO  oVo/u,a  avTov  CTTI 
/xarata).  Origen  :  CTTI  /aarata)  (temere).  Aquila  :  eis  CIKT}. 

Graecus  Venetus  :  ov/c  apet?  rowo/xa  TOV  OVTCDTOV  TOV  Otov  o~ov  cts  TO 
\f/evoos'  ov  yap  d^ajwo-et  6  OVTOOT^S  os  av  apot  Towo/xa  ot  ei?  TO  i/'cvSo?. 

Syriac  (Latin  translation,  Walton's  Polyglott)  :  Ne  jures  per  nomen 
Domini  Dei  tui  cum  mendacio  ;  quid  non  justificat  Dominus  eum  qui 
jurat  per  nomen  suum  cum  mendacio. 

Samaritan  (Latin  translation,  Walton's  Polyglott)  :  Non  accipies 
nomen  Dei  tui  in  vanum,  non  enim  impunem  dimittet  Dominus  eum 
qui  acceperit  nomen  ejus  in  'vanum. 

Arabic  (Latin  translation,  Walton's  Polyglott)  :  Ne  jures  per  nomen 
Dei  Domini  tui  f  also,  quoniam  Deus  non  justificat  eum  qui  jurat  per 
nomen  ejus  f  also. 

Vulgate  (Jerome)  :  Non  assumes  nomen  Domini  Dei  tui  in  vanum, 
nee  enim  habebit  insontem  Dominus  eum  qui  assumpserit  nomen 
Domini  Dei  sui  frustra. 

Targum  Onkelos1  :   *6 

tK'np1?  iT'Sf?  w  n: 

Jerusalem  Targum  (Etheridge's  translation,  p.  485)  :  "Sons  of 
Israel,  my  people,  no  one  of  you  shall  swear  by  the  name  of  the 
word  of  the  Lord  your  God  in  vain,  for  the  Lord  in  the  day  of  the 
great  judgment  will  not  acquit  anyone  who  shall  swear  by  His  name 
in  vain." 


1  The  Targum  Onkelos  translates  Mw     in  first  clause  by  Kiatt1?  =  '  in  vain 
in  second  clause  by  K^j5??b  =  '  for  falsehood.' 


Philo  seems  to  refer  the  third  commandment  to  false  swearing. 
He  urges  men  to  be  slow  to  take  an  oath ;  but,  if  necessary,  then  to 
swear  truthfully.  Thoughtless  and  profane  oaths  are  likewise  to  be 
avoided.  (See  Yonge's  translation,  Vol.  III.  p.  155  ff.) 

Josephus  makes  the  commandment  refer  to  the  oath.  We  are  not 
to  swear  by  God  in  a  false  manner;  but  thoughtless  oaths  are  also  to 
be  avoided.  ...  6  TpiVos  8'  CTTI  /x^Sevt  (f>av\u>  TOV  Oeov  o/u.wat.  .  .  . 
(See  Antiquities,  Bk.  III.  5.) 

The  Talmudists  seem  to  refer  this  commandment  both  to  false 
swearing  and  to  profane  swearing.  According  to  Berakoth,  I.  19,  the 
taking  of  the  divine  name  in  vain  is  forbidden ;  while  in  other  refer- 
ences the  prohibition  of  false  swearing  is  associated  with  this  com- 
mandment. In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  in  the  treatise  Shebuoth, 
both  false  oaths  and  adjurations  are  brought  under  the  prohibition  of 
this  commandment,  all  such  being  regarded  as  sinful  because  a  pro- 
faning of  the  divine  name.  The  interpretation  of  Ex.  2o7  is  made  to 
refer  to  lying  oaths,  while  Deut.  511  is  directed  against  swearing  in 
vain.  (See  Nedarim,  3,  8  ;  Rabba  on  Exodus,  chap.  28.) 

Barnabas  says  ov  py  Aa/fys  CTTI  /xarcu'w  TO  oi/o/ta  Kvptbu  (Barnabas  ip5). 
The  same  interpretation  is  followed  by  the  other  Apostolic  Fathers. 

In  Wycliffe's  Bible  the  following  translation  is  given  :  "Thou  schalt 
not  take  in  veyn  the  name  of  the  Lord  God,  for  the  Lord  schal  not 
have  him  guiltless  that  taketh  in  veyn  the  name  of  His  Lord  God." 
This  translation  is  followed  by  Coverdale,  Cranmer,  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  and  Thomas  Mathewe  (1549),  and  is  retained  in  our  author- 
ized and  revised  versions.  The  revisers,  however,  as  well  as  the  edit- 
ors of  the  new  Variorum  edition,  give  as  a  marginal  reading  "  for 
falsehood." 

Luther  translates  :  Du  sollst  den  Namen  des  Herrn  deines  Gottes 
nicht  missbrauchen  ;  denn  der  Herr  wird  den  nicht  ungestraft  lassen 
der  semen  Namen  missbraucht. 

De  Wette  translates  :  Du  sollst  den  Namen  Jehovas  deines  Gottes 
nicht  aussprechen  zur  Unwahrheit ;  denn  nicht  ungestraft  wird  Jehova 
den  lassen  der  seinen  Namen  ausspricht  zur  Unwahrheit. 

Kautzsch  renders :  Du  sollst  den  Namen  Jahwes,  deines  Gottes., 
nicht  freventlich  aussprechen  ;  denn  Jahwe  Idsst  den  nicht  ungestraft, 
der  seinen  Namen  freventlich  ausspricht. 

Calvin  makes  the  third  commandment  refer  chiefly  to  false  swear- 
ing, but  also  to  all  occasions  when  the  divine  name  is  mentioned- 
Accordingly,  the  prohibition  is  directed  against  any  light  or  frivolous 
use  of  the  name  of  God,  as  well  as  against  false  swearing.  KlttfS  he 


takes  as  meaning  for  falsehood,  but  a  better  rendering,  he  thinks,  is 
to  make  it  equivalent  to  DSH  (frustra)  —  "  in  vain."  (See  Har- 
mony of  the  Pentateuch,  Vol.  II.  p.  408.) 

Kalisch  ( Com.  in  loc.)  translates  Xl*$7  "  for  falsehood,"  and  makes 
the  commandment  a  prohibition  of  false  swearing.  (Compare  Ge- 
senius's  lexicon,  i2th  ed.) 

Dillmann  (Com.  in  loc.)  regards  the  prohibition  as  directed  against 
any  sinful  or  unnecessary  use  of  the  divine  name,  as  false  swearing, 
profanity,  etc. 

Lange  ( Com.  in  loc.)  makes  the  commandment  a  prohibition  of 
the  malicious  use  of  the  divine  name.  "  The  right  apprehension  of 
the  name  is  presupposed,  but  the  correctness  of  the  apprehension  is 
hypocritically  employed  by  the  transgressor  in  the  interest  of  selfish- 
ness and  vice." 

From  the  above  survey  we  are  able  to  give  a  summary  of  the  his- 
tory of  interpretation.  There  are  no  variations  in  the  Hebrew  text 
of  the  commandment,  but  various  renderings  are  disclosed,  which 
result  from  different  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  word  fcOtl^.  The 
various  interpretations  we  may  classify  as  follows  : 

1.  An  interpretation  is  given  which  makes  the  commandment  a 
prohibition  of  the  use  of  the  divine  name  for  a  bad  or  malicious  pur- 
pose.    Compare  the  word  in  Arabic  from  apparently  the  same  root. 
(saa  =  SJtitf  '  to  be  bad.')    (Eth.  so* a  =  '  crime.')     This  is  the  ren- 
dering of  Kautzsch  in  his  Alt.-Test.,  in  loc.,  and  Lange  (Com.  in  loc.) 
seems  to  take  this  interpretation  of  the  passage. 

2.  In  the  second  division  may  be  classified  those  interpretations 
which  give  the  meaning  of  \HN&  as  '  in  vain,  thoughtlessly,  profanely,' 
viz.  The  Septuagint  and  other  early  Greek  versions,  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch, Vulgate  (Jerome),  Barnabas,  and  the  other  Apostolic  Fathers, 
early  English  versions,  authorized  and  revised  versions,  etc. 

3.  In  the  third  division  we  comprehend  those  who  interpret  Kltt^ 
by  '  falsely  or  for  falsehood,'  including  those  who  make  it  a  specific 
command  against  perjury  or  false  swearing,  viz.   Graecus  Venetus, 
Syriac  version,  Targum,  Arabic  version,  De  Wette,  Kalisch,  etc. 

4.  Some  interpret  KltZJ  as  including  both  2  and  3,  viz.,  the  Tal- 
mud, Philo,  Josephus,  Luther,  Calvin,  Strack,  Dillmann,  and  others. 

II. 

An  inductive  study  of  the  word  Klttf.  —  The  word  occurs  in  the 
following  passages  in  the  Old  Testament : 


1.  Ex.   231:    "Thou  shalt  not  raise  a  false  report."     Here  the 
prohibition  is  clearly  directed  against  not  merely  an  empty  report, 
but  one  with  evil  intent.    Dillmann  says  "  a  harmful  report  "  ( Com.  in 
lot.) .     This  is  clearly  what  gives  point  to  the  prohibition.     It  is  not 
mere  inadvertence,  or  even  thoughtless  repetition,  but  wilful  intention 
to  harm. 

2.  Deut.  517[20] :  This  is  parallel  to  Ex.  20'°,  where  we  read  Ifjtf  ^. 
for  Klttf  Hp  of  this  verse.     This  would  seem  to  indicate  the  meaning 
of  Klttf  as  'falsehood'   in  our  ordinary  sense  of  the  word.      (See 
Driver,  Inter.  Crit.  Com.  in  loc.} 

3.  In  the  Book  of  Job,  the  word  Klttf   seems  to  have  a  like  sig- 
nificance.    Job  73,  "  mouths  of  vanity,"  clearly  signifies  mouths  of 
nothingness    or  emptiness.      (So   Delitzsch  in  loc.)      So  also   n11, 
"  For   he   knoweth   vain   men,"    clearly   means    '  men    of  impiety ' 
(compare  Ps.  264),  i.e.  'men  devoid  of  principle,'  or  '  empty '  in 
the  moral  sense.     The  meaning  is  the  same  in  i531,  where  in  the  first 
clause   Kltt?  means  '  waste '   or  '  empty  in   mind ' ;    in   the   second, 
*  empty  in  fortune'   (compare  Hos.   i21-[11],  and  see   Davidson  and 
Delitzsch  in  loc.).    In  3i5,  "If  I  have  walked  with  vanity,"  the  idea 
seems  to  be  'emptiness  under  a  concealing  mask,  falsehood,'  in  the 
sense  of  'hypocritical  pretence.'     So  also  3513,  "surely  God  will  not 
hear  vanity,"  i.e. '  emptiness,'  in  the  sense  that  God  will  not  hear  mere 
motion  of  the  lips,  which  is  lacking  in  the  essentials  of  true  prayer. 

4.  The  significance  of  Klt#  in  the  Psalms  is  similar  to  that  in  Job. 
See  Ps.  i23,  "They  speak  vanity  one  with  another,"  i.e.  they  speak 
deceitful,  hypocritical,  empty  words  under  a  disguise  that  conceals 
their  true  nature.     (See  Delitzsch  in  loc.)     The  same  idea  is  present 
in  4 17  I448-11.     Ps.  264,  "  I  have  not  sat  with  vain  persons"  (compare 
Jer.  i517,  Job  n11,  etc.),  i.e.  with  'unreal  men,  men  of  emptiness,'  as 
opposed  to  those  who  are  filled  with  the  fulness  of  God,  and  hence 
are  morally  good  (see  Delitzsch  in  loc.).    The  phrase  "  lying  vanities  " 
(KlEr^D!!)  in  3 17  is  similar  in  meaning.     The  reference  is  evidently 
to  false  gods,  i.e.  beings  that  have  no  reality  (see  Cheyne,  Com.  in  loc., 
and  Hitzig  in  loc.).     The  same  idea  is  found  in  8g4SL47^  127*  2.     (See 
Delitzsch,  De  Wette,  Hupfeld,  etc.,  in  loc.} 

5.  In  Prov.  308  fcflttf  has  the  same  significance  as  in  Job  or  Psalms, 
viz.,  '  emptiness,  unreality.' 

6.  Is.  i13,  "vain  oblations,"  i.e.  'hypocritical  offerings,  such  as  have 
nothing  behind  them  corresponding  to  what  they  pretend  to  express.' 
(See  Cheyne  and  Delitzsch  in  loc.}    Dillmann  says  "the  meal  offering 
of  emptiness,"  i.e.  lacking  in  moral  dedication. 


Is.  3O28,  "  to  sift  the  nations  with  the  sieve  of  vanity."  Cheyne  says, 
"  in  the  fan  of  nothingness,"  i.e.  '  reduce  them  to  nothingness.'  Klttf 
is  defect  of  being,  and  the  doom  here  is  that  which  corresponds  to 
such  worthlessness.  (See  Delitzsch  in  loc.) 

Is.  594,  "and  speak  lies,"  i.e.  '  emptiness,  that  which  is  wanting  in 
moral  content.'  Delitzsch  says,  "  that  which  is  morally  empty  and 
worthless." 

7.  Lam.  214 :  the  idea  is  similar  to  Isa.  59*. 

8.  Ez.  i224,  "vain  vision,"  i.e.  'unreal  vision,  one  which  has  no 
reality  in  it,  a  vision  of  emptiness.'     The  same  idea  is  present  in 
all  the  references  found  in  Ezekiel.     Compare  Ez.  i^6-7-8-9-23  2I28-34 

2228. 

9.  Hos.  io4 :  "They  have  spoken  words,  swearing  falsely,  in  making 
a  covenant."     Nowack  says,  "  a  false  oath,  in  the  sense  of  one  with  a 
mental  reservation."     Their  action  is  hypocritical,  for  they  do  not 
regard  Yahweh,  but  while  professing  to  do  so,  their  own  interest  is 
alone  at  heart.     As  they  do  not  regard  with  undivided  attention  the 
worship  of  Yahweh,  their  oaths  cannot  be  true  oaths,  for  they  are 
lacking  in  the  quality  essential   to  the  taking  of  such  oaths.     The 
reference  here  is  rather  to  the  heart  of  the  swearer  than  to  the  matter 
of  words. 

Hos.  i212[11] :  Cheyne  translates  "  If  Gilead  is  (given  to)  idolatry, 
mere  vanity  shall  they  (the  Gileadites)  become."  Gilead  being  moral 
nothingness,  she  also  shall  become  physical  nothingness  (see  Nowack 
in  loc.). 

10.  Jon.  29:    "  Lying  vanities  "  (Klttf"1^?)  (lit.  <  breaths  of  van- 
ity').    This  is  a  strong  expression,  similar  in  meaning  to  the  preced- 
ing passages. 

n.  Mai.  314 :  "It  is  vain  to  serve  God."  The  meaning  here  is 
clearly  not  that  it  is  false  or  bad  to  serve  Jehovah,  but  that  it  is 
nothingness.  It  is  vanity,  i.e.  empty  ;  there  is  no  reality  in  it. 

Owing  to  the  few  instances  in  which  the  word  Klttf  occurs  in  the 
preexilic  literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  its  complete  absence 
in  early  passages,  it  is  difficult  to  make  definite  stftements  in  regard 
to  the  history  of  the  word.  From  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
passages,  however,  it  seems  manifest  that  the  word  has  a  history  in 
Old  Testament  literature,  and  that  we  can  distinguish  in  a  general  way 
an  earlier  and  a  later  signification. 

i.  In  most  preexilic  passages  Klttf  has  the  meaning  of  '  falsity,1 
but  always  implying  evil  intent.  This  is  evident  in  Ex.  231  and  Dent. 
517[2°].  It  is  the  meaning  also  which  is  suggested  by  words  from  the 


same  root  in  the  cognate  languages.  In  such  passages  as  Hos.  io4 
Is.  i13  the  same  idea  of  evil  intent  is  present,  but  refers  to  evil  intent 
of  the  heart  rather  than  to  expression  in  outward  word  or  act.  The 
other  passages  imply  falsehood  in  a  more  objective  sense ;  here  it  is 
rather  subjective,  i.e.  '  hypocrisy '  and  '  falsity  of  character.' 

2.  In  all  exilic  and  post-exilic  passages  the  word  Klttf  has  lost  its 
earlier  significance,  and  means  '  false  '  rather  in  the  sense  of  '  unreal 
in  nature,  empty,  vain.'     Hence  any  use  of  the  divine  name  in  this 
way  corresponds  to  the  idea  of  profanity  as  found  in  the  exilic  and 
later  literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  The  word  Klttf  in  connection  with  witness-bearing  clearly  has 
the  signification  of  falsehood.     (See  Deut.  51™  Hos.  io4.) 


III. 

Conceptions  of  the  Divine  Name  among  Primitive  Peoples.  — 
Writers2  on  the  early  history  of  mankind  have  noted  that  among 
primitive  peoples  subjective  and  objective  relations  are  usually  con- 
fused. The  conception  prevails — apparently  universally  —  that  there 
is  a  very  real  connection  between  an  object  and  its  image.  Peoples 
in  a  more  advanced  stage  of  civilization,  governed  by  more  scientific 
principles,  easily  realize  this  to  be  only  a  subjective  relationship ;  but 
to  primitive  man  it  appeared  to  have  all  the  substance  of  reality. 
This  conception  is  the  fundamental  thought  which  rules  in  all  pro- 
cesses that  may  be  termed  magical,  and  explains  the  mental  miscon- 
ception on  which  all  early  philosophy  is  based,  viz.,  a  wrong  induction, 
which  gives  as  real  causes  only  such  as  exist  in  the  imagination,  or 
from  association  of  ideas  argues  to  a  connection  in  external  fact. 

A  significant  illustration  of  this  is  seen  in  the  use  of  the  name. 
The  mental  image  of  an  object  and  the  name  come  together  in  the 
mind,  and  so  a  real  connection  is  thought  to  exist  between  them. 
The  uttering  of  a  word  has  an  influence  on  the  object  for  which  it 
stands.  As  a  consequence  of  this,  the  possession  of  a  name  is 
regarded  as  the  medium  through  which  good  or  bad  influences  may 
be  exerted.  This  is  not  viewed  as  mere  symbolism,  but  is  thought 
of  as  a  real  process  ;  for  the  name  is  considered  to  be  a  real  part  of 
the  being  for  which  it  stands.  So  among  many  peoples  under  prim- 
itive conditions  there  is  a  strong  disposition  not  to  allow  their  names 

2  Among  others,  Mannhart,  Zauberglaube ;  Tylor,  Early  History  of  Man- 
kind, p.  1 1 1  ff. ;  Renouvier,  Phil.  Analytiques,  Tom.  I.  I  ff. ;  Jevons,  Introduction 
to  History  of  Religion  ;  Brinton,  Religions  of  Primitive  Peoples,  p.  93  ff. 


to  be  known.  This  is  especially  true  where  magical  processes  are 
practised.  This  conception,  indeed,  seems  to  be  universal  among 
primitive  peoples,  and  has  survived  to  our  own  day  among  many 
backward  races. 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  facts,  we  can  easily  understand  how 
the  conception  of  the  importance  of  the  name  could  be  transferred 
to  man's  relationship  with  superior  powers,  and  how  the  knowledge 
of  the  name  of  a  spirit  or  god  would  give  the  possessor  of  that  name 
a  means  of  direct  communication  with  the  deity,  and  enable  him  to 
secure  its  services  for  his  own  needs  and  purposes.  That  such  was  a 
common  conception  the  following  investigation  will  disclose. 

In  connection  with  what  has  been  stated,  it  is  necessary  to  note 
that  in  the  early  phases  of  the  religion  of  the  world  each  deity  has 
his  own  peculiar  circle  of  worshippers,  to  whom  alone  his  name  is  a 
valued  possession  ;  for  to  such  only  as  are  in  covenant  relations  with 
him  is  the  knowledge  of  his  name  of  any  utility.  In  the  course  of 
the  development  of  primitive  religions  there  arises  a  distinction 
between  those  supernatural  beings  which  come  to  be  regarded  as 
great  gods  and  other  spiritual  beings  which  do  not  rise  to  the  rank 
of  deities.  Spirits,  originally  good  or  evil,  gradually  become  further 
differentiated,  the  good  spirits  rising  to  the  rank  of  deities,  while  the 
evil  spirits  remain  mere  spirits,  and  are  regarded  as  the  special  ene- 
mies of  man  —  malignant  beings,  who  may  be  invoked  to  work  mis- 
chief against  the  good  and  upright.  The  good  gods  are  now  looked 
upon  as  beneficent  beings,  friendly  to  man,  ready  to  protect  their 
worshippers  and  to  uphold  the  cause  of  the  upright.  Religion 
becomes  more  and  more  confined  to  the  worship  of  such  deities, 
while  the  worship  of  malignant  spirits  is  regarded  as  disloyal  and 
impious.  The  power  of  these  spirits  of  darkness  is  not  denied,  but 
it  becomes  a  mark  of  great  degeneracy  to  owe  allegiance  to  them,  or 
to  make  use  of  their  power  for  any  personal  or  malicious  purpose. 

Thus,  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  divine  name  there  arises  a  con- 
flict in  most  religions  as  they  develop  into  a  higher  stage.  The 
invoking  of  the  name  of  malicious  spirits  is  condemned  as  disloyal  to 
the  gods.  On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  the  name  of  a  god,  as 
before  stated,  is  permitted,  and  is  regarded  by  the  worshipper  as  the 
medium  of  seeking  those  things  which  are  in  accord  with  his  will. 

Among  the  primitive  peoples  of  India 3  we  have  many  illustrations 
of  the  use  and  significance  of  the  name.  According  to  their  concep- 

8  See  Crooke,  Popular  Religion  and  Folklore  of  North  India,  p.  99  ff. 


8 

tion,  in  order  to  appease  the  wrath  of  some  malicious  power,  which 
has  been  the  cause  of  affliction,  misfortune,  or  sickness,  the  first  step 
is  to  determine  the  name  of  the  god  or  spirit  that  requires  to  be 
appeased.  This  is  done  in  various  ways,  simple  and  crude,  but 
revealing  a  well-defined  conception  of  the  use  of  the  name.  The 
dropping  of  oil  in  water  is  a  favorite  method.  As  the  oil  is  dropped 
the  supposed  deity  is  named.  If  the  oil  forms  one  globule,  the 
proper  deity  has  been  named ;  if  otherwise,  another  name  is  tried, 
until  the  proper  decision  is  reached. 

Many  instances  occur  where  the  name  of  the  afflicted  person  is 
changed,  or  some  other  subterfuge  is  resorted  to  in  order  to  deceive 
the  spirits  of  evil  and  escape  their  assaults.  If  one  has  lost  a  child 
by  death,  supposed  to  have  been  caused  by  malicious  spirits,  the  next 
child  born  in  the  family  is  given  an  opprobrious  name,  so  that  the 
demons  may  be  terrified.  For  the  same  reason,  nicknames  are  given 
with  the  conception  that  thereby  the  mischief-maker  is  prevented, 
through  ignorance  of  the  real  name,  from  acquiring  control  over 
the  owner.  Among  the  masses  of  the  Hindu  population  similar  ideas 
are  prevalent,  although  the  unwillingness  to  mention  the  name  has,  in 
most  cases,  lost  its  original  significance.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
Hindu,  or  even  the  Mohammedan,  of  India  considers  it  very 
improper  to  mention  a  wife's  name,  much  more  so  for  the  wife  to 
utter  the  name  of  her  husband.  Similar  conceptions 4  prevail  among 
the  negroes  of  Africa,  the  natives  of  Abyssinia,  the  aborigines  of  Aus- 
tralia, and  other  primitive  peoples. 

Among  all  such  primitive  peoples  there  is  a  distinction  drawn 
between  the  mere  magician  or  sorcerer  and  the  authorized  priest, 
and  religion  is  already  separated  from  mere  occult  arts.  The  magi- 
cians work  not  by  acknowledged  powers ;  their  practices,  therefore, 
are  proscribed,  not  perhaps  so  much  because  they  are  wrong  in 
themselves,  but  because  they  manifest  disloyalty  to  the  sanctioned 
worship  and  the  acknowledged  method  of  procedure. 

The  Aryan  faiths  of  India  entertained  similar  conceptions  in 
regard  to  the  name.  The  Atharva  Veda,  which  preserves  for  us  the 
lowest,  but,  probably,  the  most  popular  side  of  the  Vedic  religion, 
deals  especially  with  matters  of  magical  import,  and  several  passages 5 
have  reference  to  the  use  of  the  name. 

4  See  Lubbock,  Origin  of  Civilization,  p.  248  ff . ;  Herbert  Spencer,  Principles 
of  Sociology,  Vol.  I.  p.  242;  Burton,  Dahome,Vu\.  II.  p.  284;  Parkyns,  Abys- 
sinia, Vol.  II.  p.  145,  etc. 

6  Atharva  Veda,  V.  5;   XIX.  35;   VI.  44;   XIX.  39. 


When  the  old  Vedic  faith  had  developed  into  ritualistic  Brahman- 
ism  6  the  correct  knowledge  of  the  sacrificial  formula  was  all-impor- 
tant, and  had  power,  in  connection  with  the  sacrifice,  to  bend  the 
gods  to  one's  will.  The  mystic  syllable  Om  has  never  lost  its 
efficacy  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  development  of  Indian 
religions.  The  highest  merit  and  greatest  utility  to  the  worshipper 
result  from  the  faithful  use  of  this  sacred  syllable,  which  is  thought  to 
be  identical  with  the  highest  Brahma. 

Modern  Hinduism  has  similar  conceptions,  as  is  seen  in  the  impor- 
tance attached  to  the  ceremony  of  giving  a  name  to  a  newborn 
child.  The  future  career  of  the  individual  may  be  greatly  affected 
by  the  choice  of  a  happy  or  auspicious  name.  A  secret  name  is 
often  given,  which  is  considered  the  real  name  and  is  not  made 
public,  in  order  that  the  possessor  may  be  protected  against  all  those 
who  may  desire  to  injure  him  by  their  enchantments.7  The  con- 
tinued and  rapid  repetition  of  the  names  of  the  gods  is  considered  of 
great  merit.  The  name  of  Rama  is  especially  common  in  such  invo- 
cations, and  is  heard  from  the  lips  of  Hindus  at  all  times  of  special 
need  or  solemnity. 

The  Laws  of  Manu,  the  great  embodiment  of  Hindu  law,  contain 
several  passages8  which  disclose  such  conceptions.  "Sorcery  by 
means  of  sacrifice,  and  working  magic  by  means  of  roots,  are  strictly 
forbidden."  "  Those  who  live  by  teaching  the  performance  of  aus- 
picious ceremonies  .  .  .  fortune-telling,  are  punishable."  "  For  all 
incantations  intended  to  destroy  life,  for  magic  rites  with  roots  (prac- 
tised by  persons)  not  related  to  him  against  whom  they  are  directed, 
and  for  various  kinds  of  sorcery,  a  fine  .  .  .  shall  be  inflicted." 

There  is  a  lawful  use  of  such  power,  however,  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Brahmans.  "  The  Brahman  may  punish  his  foes  by  his  own 
power  alone.  Let  him  use  without  hesitation  the  sacred  texts 
revealed  by  Atharvan  and  Angiras  :  speech,  indeed,  is  the  weapon  of 
Brahmans ;  with  that  he  may  slay  his  enemies." 

The  texts  of  the  Atharva  Veda,  we  know,  were  largely  used  for 
the  purpose  of  counteracting  the  work  of  evil  demons,  for  healing 
the  sick,  and  for  the  general  benefit  and  protection  of  the  worship- 
per. This  is  evidence  of  the  lawful  and  permitted  use  of  the  divine 
name  by  properly  authorized  persons. 

6  See  "Institutes  of  Vishnu,"  Sac.  Bks.  of  the  East,  Vol.  VII.,  XXX.  33;   LV. 
9-21;   XCVIII.  6. 

7  See  Sir  Monier  Williams,  Brahmanism  and  Hinduism,  pp.  372,  358. 

8  Laws  of  Manu,  XI.  64;   IX.  2,  296;   XI.  31-34. 


IO 

From  the  inner  character  of  Persian  Zoroastrianism  we  can  under- 
stand what  a  place  such  conceptions  of  the  name  must  have  had  in  it. 
As  it  comes  before  us  in  the  Zend-Avesta  it  is  no  longer  a  primitive 
faith,  but  the  most  fully  developed,  in  many  respects,  of  all  the  Ori- 
ental religions.  The  dualism  which  characterizes  it  manifests  itself 
in  reference  to  the  use  of  the  name,  and  the  power  attached  to 
words9  is  freely  acknowledged. 

In  the  Ormazd  Yast  we  are  told  that  the  recitation  of  the  names 
of  Ahura  Mazda  is  the  best  defence  against  all  dangers.10  "Zara- 
thustra  asked  Ahura  Mazda  what  of  the  Holy  Word  is  the  strongest, 
most  glorious,  most  effective,  fiend-smiting,  best  healing,  what 
destroyeth  the  malice  of  daevas  and  men?  Ahura  Mazda  answered, 
*  Our  name  —  that  is  the  strongest,  most  victorious,  most  glorious, 
most  effective,  most  fiend-smiting.'  Reveal  unto  me  that  name  of 
thine,  O  Ahura  Mazda  !"  Then  follow  the  twenty  names,  the  reci- 
tation of  which  brings  victory.  The  legitimate  uses  of  the  name  are 
plainly  seen,  viz.,  to  destroy  the  malice  of  daevas,  to  secure  the  per- 
sonal safety  of  the  true  worshipper,  and  to  keep  in  subjection  the 
great  enemy  of  purity  and  light,  Angru  Mainyu.11 

The  old  Babylonian  religion  was  a  spirit-worship  of  the  most  prim- 
itive form.  It  furnishes  us  with  illustrations  of  the  conception  of  the 
name,  especially  in  magical  texts  and  conjuration  formulae.  The 
exorcisms  are  addressed  most  frequently  to  a  beneficent  deity,  such 
as  Marduk,  who  acts  as  mediator  with  his  father  Ea,  who  is  regarded 
as  the  source  of  highest  intelligence.  Man,  in  his  struggle  with 
malignant  spirits,  makes  appeal  to  some  beneficent  power,  spirit  or 
god.  In  the  more  developed  stage  of  the  Babylonian  religion,  when 
there  exists  a  fully  grown  pantheon  of  gods,  the  medium  of  approach 
to  these  is  through  the  personal  name  of  the  deity  invoked.  The 
knowledge  of  the  name  secures  the  assistance  of  the  god,  while  igno- 
rance of  it  prevents  the  granting  of  the  required  assistance.  The 
impression  seems  to  have  existed  that  there  was  a  power  able  to 
repel  all  hostile  attacks,  if  only  its  name  could  be  secured.  Ea 
alone  knows  the  all-powerful  name  ;  and  his  son  Marduk  (earlier 
Silik-mulu-dug),  who  acts  as  mediator,  is  besought  by  the  worship- 
per to  request  his  father's  assistance  in  time  of  need.  There  is 
clearly  emphasized  a  distinction  between  the  lawful  and  unlawful  use 
of  the  name.  The  supernatural  power  by  which  man  can  avert  the 
malicious  attacks  of  hostile  powers  is  lawfully  employed  in  the  use  of 

9  See  Vendidad,  X.,  XI.  10  See  SBE.  Vol.  XXIII.  p.  21. 

11  SBE.  Vol.  IV.  Fargard,  x.,  xi.;   Vol.  XXIII.  pp.  74,  138,  168,  260  ff. 


II 

the  name  of  the  beneficent  god  to  avert  evil,  to  benefit  the  worship- 
per, and  to  subdue  the  demons  ;  while,  if  employed  for  an  opposite 
purpose,  it  degenerates  into  pernicious  and  impious  practices  — 
mere  sorcery  and  witchcraft,  with  all  the  stream  of  evils  which  flow 
from  them.  This  latter  use  is  sternly  condemned,  clearly  showing 
that  in  the  Babylonian  religion,  throughout  its  entire  history,  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  lawful  and  the  unlawful  use  of  the  divine  name 
was  recognized.12 

According  to  Egyptian  psychology,  the  name  constituted  an  es- 
sential element  of  man's  complex  nature,  and  the  calling  upon  the 
name  was  possessed  of  a  powerful  influence.  This  is  in  harmony  with 
the  common  Oriental  conception  of  the  power  of  the  human  voice. 
If  an  influence  is  to  be  exerted  on  man  or  on  god,  it  is  accomplished 
most  readily  and  effectually  by  a  knowledge  of  the  name.  Egyptian 
religious  texts  furnish  many  striking  illustrations  of  this  idea.  A 
peculiarity  is  seen  in  the  use  of  apparently  meaningless  phrases,13 
which  are  thought  to  possess  peculiar  significance.  The  Harris 
Papyrus  Magique  furnishes  a  list  of  such  words  and  phrases.14  Many 
of  the  sacred  texts  show  how  much  depended  on  a  correct  knowledge 
of  the  name.  Isis  did  not  know  the  secret  name  of  Ra,  and  this  im- 
paired her  power.  Ra  kept  secret  the  special  name  on  which  his 
power  was  based.  "  Tell  me  thy  name,  divine  father,  for  that  man 
lives  who  is  called  by  his  name."  Most  suggestive  are  the  examples 
in  the  Book  of  the  Dead,  especially  concerning  the  identification  of 
the  dead  with  Osiris.  By  calling  the  dead  man  Osiris,  the  name 
secures  to  the  deceased  the  same  victory  over  death  and  identity  of 
experience  with  the  god. 

Chabas  has  shown  15  that  such  arts  were  not  always  confined  to 
funereal  or  preservative  rites,  but  were  used  also  for  selfish  and  vicious 
purposes  and  for  the  gratification  of  human  passions.  An  interesting 
copy  is  given  of  an  accusation  and  condemnation  to  death  for  such 
uses  of  magical  power  in  the  time  of  Rameses  III.  (p.  170).  From 

12  See  the  following  references,  as  the  basis  of  the  statement  regarding  the 
Babylonian  idea  of  the  use  and  abuse  of  the  name :  Lenormant,  Chaldean  Magict 
pp.  19,  28,  43,  72,  108;    Records  of  the  Past  (First  Series),  Vol.  I.  p.  147;   Vol. 
III.  p.  147;   Vol.  IX.  p.  143  ff.;    (Second  Series),  Vol.  V.  p.  134;    Sayce,  Hibbert 
Lectures  (1887),  pp.  303-4;    King,  Babylonian  Magic  and  Sorcery,  p.  27,  1.  33; 
p.  43,  1.  I4ff.;    p.  46,  1.8;    p.  63,  1.  89;    p.  76,!.  13 f.;    p.  84,  1.  10;    p.  93,  1.  14; 
Tallquist,  Assyr.  Bes^vorung  Maqlti,  p.  43,  1.  19;   p.  49,  1.  125;   p.  53,  1.  191,  etc. 

13  These  are  probably  corruptions  of  some  primitive  language  forgotten  in  later 
times. 

14  See  pp.  146,  151.  15  Seep.  169  ff. 


12 

this  it  is  evident  that  the  magical  books  belonged  exclusively  to  the 
king,  and  were  lawfully  consulted  only  on  special  occasions  by  the 
proper  royal  priests  or  savants  who  were  the  court  advisers  of  the  king. 
Here,  as  among  other  early  people,  the  lawful  use  of  the  name  is 
clearly  differentiated  from  all  false  and  selfish  uses.16 


IV. 

The  Name  of  Yahweh  (HIIT  Dttf).  —  Having  considered  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  name  among  early  peoples,  we  now  pass  to  a  treatment 
of  the  phrase  JTI!T  Dt2^  as  found  in  the  Old  Testament  and  its  bear- 
ing on  the  interpretation  of  the  third  commandment. 

i.  The  section  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  2O22'24,  is  an 
amplification  of  the  thought  of  commandments  one  to  three  of  the 
Decalogue.  This  we  take  as  the  point  of  departure  in  the  following 
discussion.  The  worship  of  one  God  by  Israel  is  here  implied  ;  and 
simplicity  in  that  worship  is  enjoined,  as  is  shown  in  the  restrictions 
regarding  the  altar,  and  the  prohibition  of  any  attempt  to  represent 
Yahweh  by  visible  forms,  while  v.24  6,  "  in  any  place  where  I  record 
my  name," 17  implies  a  right  and  proper  use  of  the  name  of  Yahweh, 
and  consequent  blessings  to  those  who  so  use  it.  (Compare  Ex. 

23'"-) 

Here  we  have  clearly  expressed  the  fundamental  truths  upon  which 
the  Hebrew  religion  is  based,  truths  which  in  course  of  time  were 
destined  to  transform  and  elevate  the  thought  of  Israel  into  pure, 
untramelled  monotheism.  One  God  for  Israel  means  that  as  history 
unfolds  there  is  to  come  the  full  recognition  that  there  is  one  God 
only  for  the  world.  No  idol-worship  and  simplicity  in  service  are 
requirements  that  cut  short  any  development  in  the  direction  of 
naturalism  or  mere  materialism,  while  the  use  of  the  divine  name  is 

16  See  Budge,  Book  of  the  Dead,  pp.  lix.,  249  {Papyrus  of  Ani\  pp.  254,  274, 
276,  288,  299 ;   Maspero,  BibliotJieque  Egyptologique,  I.  93  and  II.  373  ;   Erman, 
Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  pp.  265  ff. ;   Chabas,  Harris  Papyrus  Magique,  pp.  140, 
145  f.,  "Thy  name  is  more  powerful  than  the  gods"  (Litanies  of  Shu,  Chabas, 
p.  140);    Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures  (1879),  p.  184;   Book  of  the  Dead,  according 
to  Budge,  as  above,  p.  249,  "  May  my  name  be  proclaimed  when  it  is  found  upon 
the  boards  of  the  table-offering";    p.  274,  "Osiris  .  .  .  knoweth  thy  name  .  .  . 
is  known  unto  you,  and  he  knoweth  your  names";   p.  276,  the  dead  says,  "I 
know  your  names  and  I  know  the  name  of  the  great  god." 

17  T2TK  is  best  translated  as  a  permissive  Hiphil,  "  in  every  place  where  I 
permit  mention  of  my  name." 


'3 

permitted  as  the  medium  through  which  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the 
divine  character  may  be  given. 

Interpreting  in  the  light  of  our  study  of  primitive  conceptions,  we 
understand  the  name  as  the  manward  side  of  the  Divine  Being,  the 
medium  of  access  to  the  divine  presence,  and  the  source  of  blessing 
to  the  worshipper.  No  other  conception  of  early  man  was  so  well 
adapted  to  be  the  medium  through  which  higher  and  more  spiritual 
ideas  of  the  divine  nature  could  be  conveyed. 

Calling  upon  the  name  of  a  god  implies  allegiance  to  that  god,  trust 
and  faith  in  his  power.  If  Israel  was  to  grow  more  loyal  to  Yahweh, 
it  was  only  to  be  realized  by  the  sole  invoking  of  his  name  in  time 
of  need.18 

All  advance  in  religious  knowledge,  and  consequently  in  spiritual 
power,  is  the  result  of  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  name  of  God  which, 
in  other  words,  is  the  revelation  of  His  character.19  The  proclamation 
of  the  name  of  Yahweh  at  Sinai  (see  Ex.  345~7[JE])  is  the  culmination 
of  the  revelation  to  Israel  in  this  early  period,  and  in  this  revelation 
we  have  a  basis  for  a  true  spiritual  relationship  between  Yahweh  and 
His  people.  The  thought  is  often  expressed  that  the  revelation  of  the 
divine  character,  through  the  filling  out  of  the  significance  of  the 
name,  brings  not  only  increase  of  privileges  to  His  people,  but  de- 
notes their  close  relationship  to  Him,  and  inspires  confidence  and 
trust  in  the  hearts  of  His  true  worshippers.20 

If  we  compare  the  thought  of  this  early  period  of  the  Hebrew 
religion  with  that  of  other  peoples  in  regard  to  the  name,  we  cannot 
but  realize  that  there  is  a  great  similarity  in  the  forms  of  expression,, 
while  among  the  Hebrews  a  distinctly  spiritual  conception  is  present 
which  is  lacking  in  other  faiths.  It  is  this  element  which  differentiates 
Hebrew  thought  from  that  of  other  early  peoples. 

2.  In  the  period  which  is  best  represented  by  the  law  of  Deuter- 
onomy 21  the  use  of  the  divine  name  in  worship  is  especially  empha- 
sized, and  a  growth  in  spirituality  of  conception  is  manifest.  Empha- 
sis is  placed  on  the  superiority  of  Israel  over  other  peoples,  in  the 
fact  that  they  are  permitted  to  rejoice  before  God  because  of  the 

18  Gen.  426  I28  I34-18.     Compare  with  Ex.  2O24.     Here  the  name  Yahweh  is 
used.     This  is  the  conception  of  the  writer,  who  uses  the  language  of  his  own. 
times. 

19  See  Gen.  i613.     Compare  Ex.  313- 14- 15. 

2)  See  Josh,  f  g9  23*  (compare  Ex.  2313)  I  Sam.  i;45  Is.  I24  Amos  27  58  610  96-  12l 
21  Deuteronomy  was,  we  take  it,  the  Book  of  the  Law  discovered  in  the  time 
of  Josiah,  621  B.C. 


14 

manifestation  of  His  name  (Deut.  47).  The  blessedness  of  coming 
to  His  one  central  sanctuary  is  that  He  has  set  His  name  there,  and 
that  He  has  so  manifested  Himself  that  they  may  rejoice  before  Him 
(see  Deut.  i424  i62>6>11).  The  name  is  taken  as  the  expression  of 
His  nature  and  character;  and  His  revealed  name  is  associated  with 
His  people  Israel  and  with  His  sanctuary  in  their  midst.  Their 
meeting  with  Him  is  more  than  a  meeting  with  a  tribal  god,  and  the 
basis  of  their  joy  is  the  knowledge  of  Himself  as  revealed  in  His 
name. 

The  relation  of  Yahweh  to  those  called  by  His  name  —  those  to 
whom  He  stands  in  the  relation  of  owner  and  protector  —  has  now, 
aided  by  the  increased  spirituality  of  the  prophetic  age,22  passed  into 
a  purely  spiritual  conception. 

In  this  age  prophecy  reaches  its  climax.  The  work  of  the  prophet 
is  done  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  He  takes  the  place  in  Israel  of 
those  men  among  other  peoples  who  endeavored  to  make  known 
the  mysteries  of  the  unseen.  In  Him  and  in  His  work  is  seen  the 
highest  development  of  the  use  of  the  divine  name  (see  Deut.  i815-19). 

3.  The  Hebrew  literature  which  comes  from  the  exilic  age  gives 
us  a  highly  spiritual  conception  of  God.      Pure  monotheism  prevails, 
and  the  divine  nature  is  regarded  as  essentially  transcendent.     The 
holiness  of  the  divine  name  is  especially  emphasized ;    and  so,  like- 
wise,  the  sin  of  profaning  the  name   is   emphatically  condemned. 
The  Levitical  law  also  emphasizes  very  pointedly  the  holiness  and 
transcendent  character  of  God.23    According  to  this  law,  as  according 
to  the  prophets  of  this  period,  any  act  or  word  which  seems  to  have 
the  appearance  of  profanity  is  to  be  carefully  avoided.      In  this  age 
the  third  commandment  would  seem  to  have  a  direct  application 
to  the  sin  of  profanity,  or  to  any  frivolous  use  of  the  divine  name.24 

4.  In  the  post-exilic  prophets  and  in  the  later  historical  books25  the 
holiness  of  the  divine  nature  continues  to  be  emphasized  and  the  sin 
of  profanity  to  be  condemned.     Any  word  or  deed  that  seems  to  de- 
tract from  the  glory  due  to  God  or  to  manifest  a  disposition  to  deprive 
Him  of  the  honor  rightly  belonging  to  Him,  is  deprecated.     Since 
Israel  is  His  people,  any  act  that  tends  to  minimize  His  exalted 

22  Mic.  45  Deut.  2810  etc. 

23  See  especially  the  Holiness  Code  (Lev.  17-26),  which  is  generally  believed 
to  have  been  completed  in  this  age. 

2*  See  Is.  43?-  2*  48»-  n  5715  Ez.  2O9-  "•  22  39^  ™  43?. 

26  See  Mai.  16.11.12.14  22.io.n  ^  j  Chron.  136  is2  2  Chron.  3613  Dan.  9™  (cf. 
Neh.  96)  Neh.  i3«. 


character  as  their  God  is  profanity.  Clear  evidence  of  the  growing 
sanctity  of  the  divine  name  is  manifest  in  the  increasing  tendency  to 
drop  the  name  PttlT  and  to  use  in  its  place  Q^  or 


V. 

The  Use  and  Abuse  of  the  Divine  Name  in  the  Old  Testament.  — 

We  have  seen  already  that  early  peoples  in  general  had  the 
conception  of  a  proper  use  of  the  names  of  their  gods,  while  they 
condemned  the  abuse  or  malicious  use  of  these  names  as  well  as  all 
practices  of  a  merely  magical  nature  which  implied  connection  with 
or  allegiance  to  spirits  or  powers  other  than  the  accepted  deities. 

Of  the  early  religious  ideas  of  the  Hebrews  we  have  no  full  record, 
and  even  the  literature  that  treats  of  the  most  ancient  period  must  be 
colored  in  some  measure  by  the  ideas  of  the  later  time  in  which  it 
took  its  present  form.  However,  we  have,  from  a  very  early  time, 
distinct  intimations  of  the  attitude  of  the  Hebrew  religion  to  the 
subject  under  discussion.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  2218) 
condemns  to  death  the  sorceress,  which  clearly  indicates  the  attitude 
of  this  early  code.  Why  the  prohibition  is  not  fuller  we  cannot  state 
with  any  certainty.  It  would  seem  probable,  however,  from  this  stern 
prohibition,  that  among  the  Hebrews,  as  among  other  primitive  peoples, 
women  were  most  addicted  to  magic,  or  were  most  feared  because  of 
their  supposed  influence  with  the  powers  of  evil.  It  may  also  have 
been,  as  has  frequently  been  observed  in  modern  times  among  races 
emerging  from  a  low  stage  of  culture  to  a  more  advanced  stage,  that, 
owing  to  the  inferior  position  of  woman,  she  may  have  held  with  more 
tenacious  grasp  conceptions  which  came  down  from  earlier  and  less 
enlightened  times.  According  to  i  Sam.  283,  however,  Saul  is  repre- 
sented as  "putting  away  those  that  had  familiar  spirits  and  the  wizards 
out  of  the  land,"  although  a  little  later  it  was  to  the  witch  of  Endor 
that  he  went  in  the  hour  of  despondency  (v.7ff-).  From  this  it  is 
evident  that  all  persons  engaging  in  such  practices  were  regarded  as 
guilty,  and  that  the  prohibition  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was 
directed  against  magic  in  general,  female  offenders  being  singled  out 
only  because  they  were  the  most  prominent  offenders. 

The  frequent  condemnation26  of  such  arts  in  the  early  literature  of 
the  Hebrews  is  sufficient  evidence  that  they  were  common.  There  is 
no  thought  of  doubting  their  reality  or  their  potency.  As  we  have 

26  See  Micah  512  Is.  26  32-  819-  20  ig3  29*  etc. 


i6 

seen  already,  the  proper  use  of  the  divine  name,  in  accordance  with 
primitive  conceptions,  is  not  wanting.  This  is  the  privilege  of  the  true 
worshipper,  who  in  this  way  has  access  to  God.  The  name  is  also  the 
medium  through  which  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature  is 
transmitted  and  God's  power  made  available  in  blessing  His  people. 

Several  incidents  in  early  Hebrew  history  illustrate  a  use  of  the 
divine  name  which  retains  largely,  in  external  form,  the  significance 
of  the  name  found  among  other  peoples. 

The  work  of  the  seer,  for  instance,  in  early  Israel  is  akin  to  that  of 
the  seer  and  the  soothsayer  among  other  peoples,  but  he  is  not 
condemned,  for  he  speaks  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  and  under  His 
direction  and  guidance.27  Here  we  see  that  higher  religion  does  not 
abandon  primitive  forms,  but  gradually  transforms  them  in  accordance 
with  its  own  spirit. 

The  Balaam  stories  (Num.  22-24)  are  suggestive.  Balak  sends  for 
Balaam  with  rewards  of  divination  in  order  to  secure  his  aid  in  cursing 
Israel.  The  whole  account  is  a  picture  of  primitive  ideas  of  divination. 
Balaam  builds  seven  altars  and  offers  sacrifice  thereon.  But,  as  the 
account  comes  to  us  from  the  prophetic  writer,  he  can  speak  only 
as  he  is  permitted,  viz.  to  bless  Yahweh's  people  and  to  utter  words 
necessary  for  the  strengthening  of  His  people. 

The  contest  on  Mount  Carmel  between  Elijah  and  the  prophets  of 
Baal  (i  K.  i817ff)  is  also  suggestive.  Both  call  on  the  name  of  their 
god.  On  the  part  of  the  Baal  worshippers  there  is  a  full  exhibition  of 
primitive  conceptions.  Elijah  uses  forms  similar,  but  purged  of  their 
grossness  by  the  spiritual  conceptions  of  the  Hebrew  faith.28 

Passing  on  to  the  century  preceding  Josiah's  reforms,  we  find  that 
Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah  have  outgrown  earlier  conceptions. 
They  speak  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  but  their  work  is  characterized 
by  a  high  and  pure  spirituality.  They  have  reached  an  altitude 
where  forms,  although  not  entirely  outgrown,  have  lost  much  of  their 
original  meaning.  That  this  is  true  is  evidenced  by  such  passages  as 
Is.  32- 3.  Here,  prophet,  judge,  and  diviner  are  associated,  as  acknowl- 
edged elements  in  the  life  of  the  people.29  "  Prophet  and  soothsayer 
are  classed  together.  ...  It  does  not  appear  that  the  prophets 
denied  the  reality  of  magical  powers,  though  they  did  assert  that 
the  use  of  them  without  the  direction  and  assistance  of  Jehovah  was 

27  See  Judges  44ff-  i  Sam.  9. 

28  Compare  2  K.  5,  where  is  brought  out  the  Syrian  idea  of  the  use  of  name 
(v.H). 

29  Compare  Micah  36-  ~. 


an  act  of  rebellion  against  the  God  of  gods"  (Cheyne,  Com.  in  loc.). 
The  priestly  divination  by  lot  is  not  condemned  in  the  Biblical  nar- 
rative. "  Urim  and  Thummim  "  were,  probably,  simply  two  stones 
put  into  the  pocket  beneath  the  breastplate  of  the  high  priest's 
ephod,  which  indicated  "  yes  "  and  "  no  "  respectively.  Whichever 
stone  was  drawn  was  taken  as  the  divine  decision.  The  drawing  of 
the  sacred  lot  continued  down  to  late  times,  and  seems  clearly  to 
have  originated  in  the  use  of  the  divine  name  for  a  good  or  bene- 
ficial purpose. 

The  passage  in  Deut.  i810"22  treats  in  a  special  manner  of  the  posi- 
tion and  authority  of  the  prophet.  According  to  this  law,  all  forms 
of  divination  and  magic  are  to  be  avoided.  The  place  that  the 
soothsayer  and  diviner  fill  among  other  peoples  is  in  Israel  to  be 
taken  by  the  prophet,  who  is  to  speak  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  The 
true  prophet  stands  in  close  relation  to  Yahweh ;  and,  instead  of  a 
mere  knowledge  of  the  name,  which  is  the  avenue  to  power  and  influ- 
ence, he  has  a  deep  spiritual  insight  into  the  character  and  mind  of 
God.  Because  of  this  ethical  and  spiritual  knowledge  of  the  name 
of  God,  he  is  able  to  become  a  great  spiritual  force  among  his  people. 

Consequent  upon  this  advance  in  spiritual  religion,  prophet  and 
lawgiver  alike  forbade  any  lower  kind  of  prophecy  or  presumptuous 
speaking  in  His  name  or  in  the  name  of  other  gods.30  Through  the 
work  inaugurated  by  the  true  line  of  prophecy,  the  older  conceptions 
were  swallowed  up  in  a  new  conception.  The  old  order  passed 
away,  and  it  remained  only  for  the  period  of  the  exile  to  complete 
more  fully  the  emancipation  of  the  mind  from  all  the  lingering  crudi- 
ties of  the  youth  of  Israel's  religious  history. 

The  literature  from  the  period  of  the  exile  is  especially  character- 
ized by  its  strong  assertions  of  monotheism  —  Yahweh  is  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth.  It  follows  from  this  that  all  divination  and  worship  of 
heathen  deities  is  vanity.  Babylon  will  be  overthrown,  and  her  divin- 
ers and  sorcerers  will  have  no  power  to  prevail,  for  Yahweh  will 
destroy  them.31 

The  Levitical  code  on  this  point,  as  on  others,  is  individual  in  its 
precepts.  It  forbids  the  individual,  on  pain  of  God's  direct  retribu- 
tion, to  consult  wizards  or  those  who  have  familiar  spirits.32  The 
practice  of  such  arts  by  man  or  woman  is  punishable  by  stoning  to 
death.33  The  spirit  of  this  legislation  is  even  more  severe  than  that 

80  See  2  K.  I717  2i4-  7  23^  Jer.  u21  2325-  27  298-  21-  23  27™  4426. 

31  See  Is.  4425  2;13  Ez.  136- 7-  23  I224  21^1  2223-  28. 

32  See  Lev.  ig31  2O6.  33  See  Lev.  2O27. 


i8 

of  Deuteronomy,  and  is  more  directly  addressed  to  the  individual. 
Not  only  disloyalty  in  general,  but  each  individual  transgression  is 
threatened  with  severest  punishments.  It  is  clear  that  the  Levitical 
code  emphasizes  the  sin  of  dishonoring  the  name  of  Yahweh. 

i  Chr.  io13-14  is  in  harmony  with  this  law  in  spirit.  Saul  is  con- 
demned, not  only  for  disobedience,  but  also  because  he  consulted 
one  who  had  a  familiar  spirit,34  to  inquire  of  it,  and  inquired  not  of 
the  Lord.  He  is  thus  guilty  of  dishonoring  God,  and  of  not  giving 
that  respect  to  Him  which  is  due  to  His  great  and  holy  name. 


VI. 

The  Oath.  —  The  oath,  in  its  relation  to  the  third  commandment, 
is  of  such  importance  that  it  demands  special  treatment. 

In  Hebrew,  two  terms  are  used  for  the  oath :    (i)  rh$  (comp. 
^K  =  '  to  lament,  to  wail ' ;    Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  makes  it  akin  to 
K),  lit.  'an  invocation  of  woe  upon  oneself,'  hence,  'an  oath  with 
an  imprecation.'     (2)  H^Q^  (root  2D$  'to  be  sevened'),  which  is 
usually  interpreted  to  mean  f  a  declaration  confirmed  by  seven  vic- 
tims,' or  '  made  before  seven  witnesses.'      Both  words  are  used  fre- 
quently in  the  sense  of  'oath.'      The  Septuagint  has  O/>KOS,  Vulgate, 
juramentum  or  jusjurandum.     When  used  of  a  curse,  d/oa  and  male- 
die  fio  are  the  translations. 

The  oath  existed  among  all  primitive  peoples.  The  definition 
given  by  Cicero  seems  to  be  correct :  "  It  is  an  affirmation  with  a 
religious  sanction."  ^  It  seems  originally  to  have  been  of  the  same 
nature  as  the  ordeal,  and  to  have  arisen  from  the  conception  that 
man,  by  certain  acts  and  ceremonies,  can  compel  the  interference  of 
the  Divine  to  establish  innocence  or  to  detect  guilt.36  So  in  the  case 
of  the  oath,  vengeance  is  imprecated  upon  falsehood,  and  punish- 
ment is  believed  to  be  certain  in  case  of  its  violation.37  The  appeal 
is  made  to  that  which  is  most  highly  reverenced  or  feared,  and,  con- 
sequently, this  appeal  changes  with  changing  religious  conceptions. 
In  an  age  of  spirit-worship  we  find  oaths  taken  in  the  names  of  spir- 
its, often  those  of  the  lower  world,  which  are  most  feared.  The  oath 
is  among  the  earliest  religious  conceptions  with  a  moral  basis.  Even 
in  primitive  forms  of  worship  spirits  are  appealed  to  as  vindicators  of 

34  Compare  i  Sam.  I313  I523.  &  See  Cicero,  De  OJficiis,  III.  29. 

86  See  Brinton,  Primitive  Religions,  p.  226. 

37  McClintock  and  Strong,  Cyclopedia,  Vol.  VII.,  art.  "  Oath." 


justice.38  The  Greek  of  an  early  age  swore  by  the  gods  of  the  lower 
world,  and  perjury  was  even  then  regarded  as  the  most  impious  of 
all  actions.39 

The  Hebrew  oath  seems  to  look  back  to  an  original  magical  con- 
ception of  the  world.  This  is  seen  in  the  ceremonies  which  accom- 
pany it.  Lifting  the  hand  is  customary  both  in  oaths  and  in  incanta- 
tions. Taking  hold  with  the  hand  of  that  which  is  deemed  most 
sacred  is  common  to  invocations  and  to  incantations.  The  power 
invoked  in  both  cases  is  called  upon  by  name.  rPK  signifies  '  the 
invoking  of  a  power,'  and  calls  for  an  imprecation  to  rest  upon  the 
one  who  makes  the  appeal.  The  root  2DtP  (=  to  be  sevened)  doubt- 
less had  originally  a  similar  conception,  the  sacred  number  seven 
being  employed  in  magic  rites.  In  Ethiopic,  the  word  rrom  the 
same  root  signifies  '  enchanter.'  Among  the  ancient  Arabs,  when 
they  interchanged  pledges,  blood  was  shed  and  smeared  on  seven 
stones,40  while  the  gods  Orotal  and  Alilat  were  invoked.41 

In  the  early  Babylonian  religion  we  find  the  conception  of  seven 
zones  of  the  lower  world,  and  seven  gods  presiding  over  these  sub- 
terranean realms.  Whether  the  appeal  in  the  oath  was  made  orig- 
inally to  these  deities  we  are  not  able  to  discover ;  but  that  some 
such  conception  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  oath  seems  a  reason- 
able inference.  Such  customs,  accordingly,  as  are  referred  to  in 
Gen.  2i22ff-  seem  to  be  survivals  of  an  early  worship  of  spirits. 

From  what  we  have  seen,  it  is  clear  that  the  oath  in  primitive 
times  was  closely  connected  with  the  general  conception  of  the 
divine  name.  In  it  we  meet  with  a  specific  application  of  a  far- 
reaching  principle  of  primitive  life  and  thought. 

In  general,  oaths  in  the  Old  Testament  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes:  (i)  A  covenant  ratified  by  an  oath;  e.g.  Gen.  2628  3i53 
2  Sam.  2 17  2  Kings  n4.  (2)  An  appeal  to  God  in  attestation  of  the 
truth  of  a  statement;  e.g.  Ex.  2210[11]  Gen.  24^  Josh.  6™  2  Sam.  i521 
Gen.  so5-25  Josh.  915  2  Sam.  ip23  Josh.  212'21.  (3)  The  judicial  oath. 

The  appeal  in  the  oath,  among  the  Hebrews,  as  among  other 
peoples,  was  made  to  their  supreme  deity.  As  the  mention  of  the 
name  of  other  deities  was  forbidden,  so  they  were  not  to  appeal  to 
any  other  god  than  Yahweh  in  testifying  by  oath.42  The  oath,  from 
what  we  have  seen,  is  of  the  nature  of  a  confession  of  faith  >  and  so 

88  See  Tiele,  Gifford Lectures  (1896). 

89  Farnell,  Greek  Cults,  Vol.  I.  pp.  47,  69  ff.;   Iliad,  XV.  37. 

40  See  Herodotus,  III.  8.  41  Compare  the  narrative  in  Gen.  2I22-  82. 

42  See  Josh.  237.     Compare  with  Ex.  2313. 


20 

swearing  by  any  other  god  is  an  acknowledgment  of  that  god.  In 
all  cases,  therefore,  where  worshippers  of  Yahweh  are  concerned,  the 
appeal  is  made  to  the  divine  under  the  name  of  Yahweh 43 ;  and  only 
when  covenant  oaths  are  made  with  those  outside  Israel  are  other 
names  employed.44 

To  understand  more  clearly  this  use  of  the  divine  name,  we 
require  to  examine  briefly  the  different  phases  of  the  oath. 

i.  In  the  early  period  of  Israel's  history,  the  oath  is  most  fre- 
quently found  in  connection  with  covenants  of  friendship. 

The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is  regarded  as   the   oath  of 

Yahweh  to  him.45     In  this  case  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  sacri- 

»      * 

fice,  but  the  name  of  Yahweh  is  solemnly  invoked  in  an  !"PK.46 

In  Gen.  2i22ff-,  the  covenant  of  Abimelech  with  Abraham  at  Beer- 
sheba,  we  see  several  primitive  customs.  Presents  are  given,  as 
appears  to  have  been  usual  when  covenant  relations  were  entered 
upon.  When  the  oath  is  taken,  "the47  seven  lambs"  are  placed 
apart  (see  p.  184).  In  Gen.  242<3  we  find  in  connection  with  the  oath 
several  primitive  conceptions.  Placing  the  hand  under  the  thigh 
illustrates  the  common  practice  when  appealing  to  the  divine,  of 
laying  the  hand  on  what  is  deemed  sacred.  Laying  hold  of  the  horns 
of  the  altar  is  a  familiar  illustration  of  the  same  idea.  The  act  referred 
to  in  this  passage  has  special  significance  in  view  of  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, which  is  the  outward  sign  of  the  covenant.  The  oath  is  sworn 
by  the  God  of  the  covenant,  indicating  that  all  the  parties  concerned 
are  in  covenant  relationship,  and  are  bound  together  by  this  sacred  tie. 
Another  reference  to  the  oath  taken  on  entering  into  covenant  re- 
lations is  found  in  Gen.  2628ff-,  in  the  account  of  the  covenant  entered 
into  between  Isaac  and  Abimelech.48  They  partake  of  a  covenant 
feast,  and  next  morning  the  covenant  oath  is  taken.  The  narrative  of 
Gen.  3i53ff-  is  similar.  After  the  taking  of  the  oath,  there  follows  a 
covenant  meal,  which  expresses  the  covenant  relationship. 

The  phrase  IT^lS  JT13  (Gr.  o/o/aa  re/xveo-0ai,  Lat.  foedus  icire) 
seems  to  refer  to  this  covenant  oath.  The  phrase  in  Greek  (see 
Herod,  iv.  70,  71  ;  Horn.  //.  iv.  155)  has  the  meaning  of  taking  an 

43  See  Ex.  2211  Gen.  I422  (P)  I  Sam.  2421-  ^ 

44  Gen%  2i23-  24  (E)  I  Sam.  3O15.  45  See  Gen.  263. 

46  See  Dillmann,  Com.  on  Gen.  15. 

47  Gen.  2 130,  IJD$"n)$.     Here  "fi#  marks  determination.    Compare  Dillmann, 
Com.  in  loc. 

48  The  word  for  '  oath  '  used  in  v.28  is  H7K,  and  seems  to  be  taken  as  equivalent 
to  nttlSttf,  v.33. 


21 

oath,  then  of  making  a  covenant.  The  Hebrew  words  JPHID  and  DDp 
seem  to  have  similar  radical  meaning,  viz.  '  to  cut '  or  '  divide,'  and 
evidently  refer  back  to  sacrifice,  which  accompanied  early  covenants 
as  well  as  magical  oaths  or  ordeals.  This  primitive  oath  was  simply 
a  magical  conjuration,  a  fact  that  indicates  clearly  the  similarity  of 
the  oath  to  the  use  of  the  divine  name  in  general  among  primitive 
peoples.49 

In  early  society  moral  obligations  were  not  rigidly  felt,  and  it  would 
appear  that  the  strenuous  character  of  the  oath  was  largely  owing  to 
this  fact.  As  already  stated,  that  which  was  most  feared  or  was  most 
calculated  to  impress  with  peculiar  emphasis,  was  brought  to  bear  on 
the  person  taking  the  oath.  This  is  evident  in  the  cases  we  have  just 
noticed  of  the  use  of  the  oath  in  covenants.  In  these  cases,  just  as  in 
early  invocations  and  incantations,  ceremonies  of  a  mystic  character, 
such  as  the  sacrificial  meal,  tended  to  give  more  emphasis  to  the 
binding  character  of  the  transactions.  We  cannot  but  notice  how 
prominent  a  place  the  covenant  oath  occupied  in  this  early  period  of 
Israel's  history,  and  what  a  storehouse  of  primitive  ideas  is  found  in 
the  literature  which  pictures  the  pre-Mosaic  age. 

2.  Another  form  of  the  oath  is  that  in  which  a  private  individual 
appeals  to  God,  to  attest  the  truth  of  a  statement.     This  is  the  volun- 
tary oath,  a  strong  asseveration  by  an  appeal  to  the  Divine. 

During  the  period  of  the  kings  this  form  of  oath,  judging  from  our 
sources,  was  exceedingly  common.  Asseverations  were  indulged  in  on 
all  occasions,  and  this  practice  does  not  seem  to  have  been  regarded 
as  particularly  open  to  condemnation.  The  punishments  imprecated 
upon  oneself  are  not  generally  expressed,  and  a  thoughtless  air  and 
very  general  lack  of  reverence  characterizes  the  procedure.  It  may 
be  that  the  older  conception  of  the  use  of  the  divine  name  had  lost 
its  significance,  while  the  higher  and  more  spiritual  conception  resulting 
from  the  prophetic  teaching  had  not  yet  become  a  living  reality. 
Things  most  sacred  are  treated  with  a  familiarity  which  doubtless 
tended  to  looseness  in  the  use  of  the  divine  name  in  this  special  form 
of  the  oath.50 

3.  A  third  form  of  the  oath  is  that  which  may  properly  be  designated 

49  For  a  discussion  of  the  term  DD(5  as  to  its  early  magical  significance,  see 
Davies,  Magic,  Divination,  and  Demonology,  p.  44  ff. 

50  See  i  Sam.  2O17.     Similar  expressions  occur  eleven  times  in  Samuel  and 
Kings.     See  also  the  expressions  found  in  2  Sam.  I25,  "as  the  Lord  liveth  "; 
2  Sam.  I4n  i  K.  i29  22*  i810.     Compare  2  Sam.  I521  i  K.  IQ2  i  K.  2O10  i  Sam.  I26 
and  many  similar  expressions. 


22 


as  the  judicial  oath.  The  book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  226"12)  gives  an 
illustration  of  this  kind  of  oath.  In  all  such  cases  the  parties  concerned 
come  before  the  judges,51  who  administer  justice  in  the  name  of  God 
(v.11).  From  the  form  of  the  expression  used  it  is  evident  that  the 
oath  in  this  case  was  administered  at  special  places  where  God  made 
Himself  known,  and  thus  the  parties  were  brought  into  such  sacred 
relations  that  the  oath  took  on  a  most  solemn  and  sacred  character. 

The  passage  in  i  Kings  831  is  similar  in  significance.  The  oath  is 
peculiarly  sacred  as  being  taken  in  Yahweh's  temple,  at  His  altar, 
where  His  name  is  (v.29)  (comp.  2  K.  n4).  Here  the  temple  takes 
the  place  of  the  early  sanctuary,  but  the  idea  is  the  same.  It  would 
seem  that  something  of  the  nature  of  the  ordeal  was  still  present  in 
such  oaths  (see  i  K.  832).  The  old  forms  remain  while  the  thought 
has  passed  beyond  the  early,  crude,  material  conceptions.52 

The  law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  prophets  from  Amos  to  Jere- 
miah, regard  the  oath  from  their  own  exalted  view  of  the  divine 
name  and  character.  They  are  pronounced  against  the  abuse  of  the 
oath  of  Yahweh,  which  clearly  demonstrates,  they  declare,  a  lack  of 
true  reverence  among  the  people.  By  taking  the  oath  of  Yahweh 
they  profess  to  be  His,  but  they  are  lacking  in  the  qualities  of  char- 
acter which  are  demanded  of  those  who  would  so  use  His  name. 
The  whole  nation  is  guilty  of  perjury.  They  have  violated  the  third 
commandment  because  of  this  hypocritical  use  of  the  name  of 
Yahweh.53 

The  passage  that  gives  the  key  to  the  later  post-exilic  conception 
of  the  oath  is  Lev.  iQ12 :  "Ye  shall  not  swear  by  my  name  falsely,  so 
that  \hv\\profane  the  name  of  thy  God ;  I  am  the  Lord." 

The  false  oath  is  condemned  because  it  is  a  profaning  of  the  holy 
name  of  Yahweh. 

It  is  evident  from  our  survey  that  our  position  is  correct  —  that 
throughout  its  whole  history  the  oath  was  but  a  specific  use  of  the 
divine  name.  The  fundamental  thought  in  the  oath  was  the  same  as 
in  the  more  general  conception  of  the  name. 


In  the  foregoing  pages  an  effort  has  been  made  to  study  the  third 
commandment  from  the  historic  and  the  comparative  points  of  view. 


51  D^rp!^  here  is  best  understood  as  referring  to  the  judges  who  give  decisions 
as  from  Yahweh. 

52  Compare  this  form  of  the  oath  with  the  Arabic  conception,  as  found  in  the 
story  told  in  Bokhari,  4,  219  ff. 

53  See  such  passages  as  Amos  81*  Hos.  415  io4  Zeph.  i5  Jer.  42  52-  7  f  I216. 


23 

The  following  ^propositions  may  be  presented  as  the  results  of  this 
discussion  : 

I.  The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  this  commandment  reveals 
three  distinct  renderings,  which  result  from  different  interpretations 
of  the  Hebrew  word  Kltt? :    (a)  Thou  shalt  not  utter  the  name  of 
Yahweh,  thy  God,  for  a  bad  or  malicious  purpose,  etc.  ;(£)...  in 
vain,  thoughtlessly,  profanely;   (c)  .  .  .  for  falsehood. 

II.  An  inductive   study  of  the  word  W$)  reveals  apparently  an 
early  and  a  later  signification  of  the  word  ;    the  earlier  corresponding 
to  a  in  the  previous  paragraph,  the  later  to  b,  while  a  more  specific 
meaning  in  reference  to  witness-bearing  corresponds  to  c. 

III.  A  comparative   study  of  conceptions  regarding   the  divine 
name  among  early  peoples  reveals  the  universal  fact  that  there  was, 
in  accordance  with  primitive  realistic  conceptions,  a  proper  use  of 
the  divine  name  permitted  to  the  worshipper,  for  good  and  bene- 
ficial purposes,  while  any  abuse  of  the  name,  for  bad  or  malicious 
purposes,  was  strongly  condemned. 

IV.  An  historical  study  of  the  phrase  "  name  of  Yahweh  "  (DtT 
rn.T)  in  the  Old  Testament  shows  a  conception  of  the  divine  name 
similar  to  that  among  outside  peoples,  but  differing  as  the  Hebrew 
idea  of  God  differed  from  that  of  other  peoples,  and  developing  with 
the  growing  spiritual  conceptions  of  the  character  and  nature  of  God. 

V.  The  Old  Testament,  in  legislation  and  prophecy,  discloses  a 
permitted  use  of  the  divine  name,  while  any  unlawful  use  is  sternly 
prohibited.      Such  use  and  abuse  change  ever  in  adaptation  to  the 
necessities  of  the  age,  and  in  harmony  with  a  growing  spirituality  in 
the  conception  of  God. 

VI.  The  oath,  in  its  origin,  connects  itself  with  the  general  primi- 
tive conception  of  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  the  divine  name ;  and,  in 
the  Old  Testament,  comes  under  the  scope  of  the  prohibition  of  the 
third  commandment  as  a  specific  use  of  the  divine  name. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


